View Single Post
  #16  
Unread 01-26-2001, 11:14 AM
Caleb Murdock Caleb Murdock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New York City
Posts: 797
Post

I don't, in fact, think that syllabic poetry really exists in English -- English cannot escape its nature as a stress language. However, when a poet such as myself counts syllables as a means of measure, I do believe that the listener, consciously or unconsciously, hears the regularity of syllables as a kind of form, especially if the poet closes many of those lines. Like most poets, I close many of my lines (with the end of a sentence, a comma, a distinct phrase, etc.), so the listener does indeed hear the regularity of the syllable count. I also tend to close my stanzas, using cross-stanza enjambments only occasionally.

Now, if a poet were to use my method but did not close at least half of his lines, then yes, there is no way for a listener to distinguish what he's hearing from free verse. That is, in fact, what a few faux-formalists (I like to call them) are doing. But I'm not a faux-formalist -- I WANT the listener to hear form in my poems.

I compared the kind of poetry that I like to jazz improvisation in another thread. What I like to do is to play with different elements -- play them against each other, you might say. Thus, in a poem in which I am limiting myself to ten syllables per line, I will also regularly insert lines of iambic pentameter (although other lines may have 4 beats). Thus, the listener hears different patterns coming and going -- patterns of syllables, patterns of beats. A poem which is based on one pattern only -- say, five beats per line -- doesn't sound nearly as interesting to me.

I am not saying that I successfully achieve my aims, but I try.

I hate to dredge up the spectre of a poem that we have discussed before, but it is appropriate here. In "Spring and Fall: To a Young Child", Hopkins adheres very closely to a syllable count of 7-8 (which is what I do -- I give myself a narrow range). The lines, however, can be read with as few as 2 stresses and as many as 5 stresses, depending on the line. However, the regularity of the syllable count is where the poem gets its "measure", and certainly the listener hears that regularity (especially since most of the lines are closed). Towards the end of the poem, Hopkins inserts two lines of 6 syllables each, but that is, I believe, a purposeful variation -- short lines are more dramatic, and he inserts them at the point where he is revealing the moral of the poem.

When I read that poem, I do not hear chaos or any kind of free-verse quality -- I hear form. I hear the blues, I hear a melancholy jazz improvisation, I hear the regular/irregular rhythms of sex. I hear things that excite me. As I've said before, that poem is the epitomy of how I want to write. It is acknowledged by history and by virtually every authority as being a great poem, and I wish that you, Alan, would try to appreciate it. If you could learn to appreciate it, you would understand my own sensibilities much better.

Now, in "Nocture" by Auden, there are also multiple patterns. There is the regularity of the syllable count, and the regularity of the beats (which, together, form the meter, of course), but Auden also uses a recurrent device of two beats in a row throughout the poem. I haven't analyzed that poem completely, but there's more to it than just the meter.


[This message has been edited by Caleb Murdock (edited January 26, 2001).]
Reply With Quote